The U.S. War Strategy in Afghanistan.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-06-17/us-war-strategy-afghanistan
Spc. Jesus B. Fernandez crosses a stream during a unit visit to Angla Kala village in Afghanistan's Kunar province, Feb. 6, 2010. International Security Assistance Force troops regularly meet with village elders to improve communications between residents and government officials.
The U.S. Army via Flickr
What's been won and lost in America's longest war. The administration's Afghan policy is hit by bipartisan criticism and declining public support. Options for the U.S. and Nato in the months ahead.
Guests
Karen DeYoung
senior diplomatic correspondent, The Washington Post.
Amb. Richard Haass
president, Council on Foreign Relations and author of "A War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars"
Richard Fontaine
senior fellow for the Center for a New American Security. He previously served as foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain. He has worked at the State Department, and on the staffs of both the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committee.
Col. Douglas Macgregor
U.S. Army-Retired, decorated combat veteran, senior vice president at Potomac League, LLC, and author of "Warrior's Rage: The Great Tank Battle of 73 Easting."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
In Bob Woodward's first book about President Bush and the War in Afghanistan he described sacks of huge amounts of money being used to bribe war lords into forcing the Taliban to leave. Soon after, the Bush administration veered off into the Iraq invasion and occupation....and the Taliban came back (no doubt with their own sacks of bribe money).
My question:
How can the U.S. be effective in appealing to ordinary people when those in power are so corrupt?
The basic fact about Afghanistan that no one seems to accept is that there is no such thing as an Afghan. There is an area on the map inhabited by Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Kirghiz and Hazaras, all of whom have hated and warred against each other for centuries. Ethnic loyalty always transcends any loyalty to the concept of "Afghanistan". The current government and most importantly the army is controlled by the northern groups (non-Pastun) who collectively amount to less then a majority of the population, while the Taliban is drawn almost entirely from the southern Pashtuns. Even the Pashtuns are divided into numerous tribes with divided loyalty. President Karzai ( a Pashtun of the minor tribe of the Popalzai) could never command or unite the two main rival tribal alliances within the Pashtuns (Durrani vs. Ghilzai). Any attempt to create a unified state in this primitive tribal morass is doomed to fail. The U.S. should get out as fast as possible and leave the Karzai regime to sink or swim on its own.
Paul King, Raleigh NC
Things to remember regarding this long long war (used very loosely).
We are in a war on terrorism, not a war against Afghanistan as a nation.
This war effort was initiated by and under the Bush administration and funded primarily by misinformation to the public.
The Obama administration, in its 15 months in office as an effective administration (the first 90 days was getting to know what was wrong), has tried to provide a controlled exit strategy.
This strategy is wise because it gets US out of Afghanistan without creating a vacuum and backlash of civil devastation. We've started and provided a slow draw down of troops from Iraq (which we never should have been in as it had NO impact on the Afghani conflict).
Now the righteous right wing is blaming the withdrawal pace on the Obama administration when they were infact the ones that put us in this mess.
Why can't the general public and your commentator's remember the irrational beginnings of this conflict and appreciate that an isolationist removal of all troops will only expose us, the Afghani people and entire region to greater conflict?
The New York Times reported that the U.S. has "discovered" vast mineral deposits in Afghanistan. This could change the entire economic balance of the country and the region.
My question:
How can this change the U.S. war strategy?
article link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html
In follow up to my earlier comment, it is important to take into consideration that the US involvement will never assure a controlled government that agrees with US political objectives.
The sooner we can provide a controlled exit and leave the governments to run their own countries the better for the American people; whether it becomes a dictatorial or democratically run governement, it is NOT our nation to control.
I agree with a steadily paced withdrawal, but disagree with a deadline to say this x day of x month is the last day a US soldier, airman or marine will be in Afghanistan. It sets our troops up for a planned offensive and attack for a retreating / withdrawing force. We MUST be rational in our withdrawal.
Agreed about the idea that a viable goal should be salvaging a perception of victory. I understand the reason for that perspective, but given the nature of interpretation, I think that we would always be perceived - or at least spun to the appearance of failure in our effort in Afghanistan.
I do think one element that is important to the discussion is the ephemeral -albeit real - force of historical pride. The groups in the Afghanistan/Pakistan conflicted area are the same groups that for a century effectively played the Russians and British against each other in "the Great Game". That is a point of pride for many of the ethnic groups who - through oral tradition - recount this success.
Moreover, Afghanistan is the only area (I am intentionally not using the word "nation" or "state" because I don't believe the political reality and weight that the west gives to political boundaries is relevant here) that was never "conquered" by the Russians/Soviets.
The story of this resistance runs strong in the oral traditions of the people there and provides an intangible edge and raison d'etre to the groups.
I agree that we should extricate as soon as possible because our presence or absence will not change the outcome of continued conflict in the region. The solutions to the problems in the region are, as one of your guests pointed out, best resolved by those nations in the region for whom Afghanistan is of strategic interest.
The elephants in this room are domestic US politics and the influence of the military industrial complex as described by President Eisenhower 60 years ago.
Politics: Fear of right-wing demagogues keeps liberals from abandoning no-win positions. Common sense has no chance against fear. Fear of looking weak vis-a-vis the enemy of the moment was the same driving force that pushed Kennedy into Vietnam. Today it is the same, just more sophisticated.
Military-Industrial influence: surely you are old enough to remember Ike, one needs not to have liked him to understand his farewell address. The big defense & security contractors have raked in trillions of dollars since 9/11. they spend big money on lobbying Congress. They are the winners of this war.
The most successful strategy in Afghanistan or anywhere begins with LISTENING to what the people in the country want! Greg Mortensen has proved this for many years in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Col. Macgregor finally witnessed to what I have been afraid of for a long time: that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are fought principally for the profit they bring American contractors and other political friends. 100,000 contractors in Afghanistan and a similar number in Iraq? Being paid in six figures for doing work we used to pay privates and corporals? Letting this emerge on your program puts you in the company of Berstein and Woodward. Too much of American journalism neglects burrowing in on the truth and settles for the model of Rita Skeeter (Harry Potter). I could wish every journalist reporting on most American problems would ask, "Where's the money going? Who is paying our politicians and what are we getting in return?" Thomas Frank, "The Wrecking Crew," and Jeff Sharlett, "The Family," have well documented answers to those questions. It looks to me as if America is for sale and we are asking those we send into combat to pay the price. They pay; we continue to live as if no war had happened for nine years. In other American wars, all have sacrificed.
Diane,
as always a wonderful show.
One of the male guests made a bizarre statement - something along the lines that no Muslim wants another country's army in his/her own country.
Why is he suggesting this is an anomaly restricted to Muslims? Who of us in the US (name your country) would submit and bow down to having non-US military on our streets. In fact, we have the Posse Commitatus preventing the operation of our own military on our own lands.
Unnecessarily provative statement.
Ann C